coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
6.  The applicant company was set up in 1991 and is based in Sofia.
7.  On 1 October 1991 it entered into a lease agreement with a municipally-owned supermarket chain, under which it rented one of its shops (“the shop”). The term of the agreement was until 1 October 1994.
8.  By a supplementary agreement of 1 September 1992 the term of the agreement was extended until 1 September 1997.
9.  On 29 June 1995 the applicant company submitted a proposal to the Sofia Municipal Council to purchase the shop under the preferential privatisation procedure for lessees of State and municipally-owned properties provided for in section 35(1) of the Privatisation Act (see paragraph 20 below).
10.  By a further supplementary agreement of 2 January 1996 the term of the lease agreement concerning the shop was amended and was set to expire on 2 July 1996.
11.  In a decision of 27 September 1996 the Municipal Council rejected the applicant company’s request of 29 June 1995 on the grounds that the conditions under section 35(1) of the Privatisation Act had not been met because the lease agreement for the shop “bore a date later than 15 October 1993”.
12.  On 24 October 1996 the applicant company appealed against the refusal.
13.  In a judgment of 5 March 1998 the Sofia City Court found in favour of the applicant company, quashed the decision of the Municipal Council of 27 September 1996 and referred to it the matter for re-examination. It found that on 15 October 1993 the applicant company had been a lessee of the shop and that in rejecting its privatisation proposal on the ground that it had not been a lessee the Municipal Council had acted in contravention with the law.
14.  The Municipal Council did not appeal against the judgment and it became final on 2 April 1998.
15.  On 7 May 1998 the applicant company informed the Municipal Council of the judgment in its favour and invited the latter to implement the court’s decision by selling it the shop in accordance with the applicable rules. No action was taken in response by the Municipal Council.
16.  On 4 May 2001 the applicant company once again petitioned the Municipal Council to implement the City Court’s judgment of 5 March 1998.
17.  In response, by letter of 9 July 2001, the Sofia Municipal Privatisation Agency informed the applicant company that on 27 April 1998 the Municipal Council had transformed the municipally-owned supermarket chain and had spun off two companies from it; the shop had been included in the capital of one of these companies which had been privatised on 24 February 1999.
4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Yambol. At the material time she was employed as a human resources specialist at a steel production company.
5.  In February 1998 the applicant’s employment was terminated and she was offered another position with the same company for a lower salary.
6.  On 17 September 1998 she brought a claim against her employer, complaining about the loss of income resulting from her reassignment to a less well-paid job.
7.  In a judgment of 29 June 1999 the Sofia District Court dismissed the claim, and the applicant appealed to the Sofia City Court.
8.  The court held two hearings, one of which was adjourned owing to the defective summoning of the applicant’s employer. At the third hearing, held on 23 November 2000, the applicant asked for the proceedings to be stayed pending the outcome of the proceedings brought in May 1999 (see paragraph 11 below). On 4 June 2001 the court turned down her request. The applicant appealed against this ruling. On 22 November 2001 the Supreme Court of Cassation found that it could not examine the appeal as it had no access to the case file of the May 1999 proceedings. It therefore sent the case back to the Sofia City Court, instructing it to enclose the case file and return all the materials to it for an examination of the appeal. After this was done, on 6 August 2002 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the Sofia City Court’s ruling, holding that the determination of the case was not dependent on the outcome of the 1999 proceedings.
9.  The proceedings on the merits then resumed before the Sofia City Court. On 27 October 2004, after holding four more hearings, it upheld the Sofia District Court’s judgment. The text of the court’s judgment indicated that it was appealable on points of law.
10.  The applicant lodged an appeal, but on 14 March 2007 the Supreme Court of Cassation declared it inadmissible, observing that following a legislative amendment which had entered into force in 2002, appellate judgments in certain employment disputes were no longer subject to appeal on points of law.
11.  In February 1999 the applicant was dismissed from her employment, and on 25 May 1999 she instituted proceedings against her former employer, seeking a declaration that the dismissal had been unfair, reinstatement and compensation for six months of lost wages.
12.  After holding five hearings, two of which were adjourned owing to the failure of an expert to file her report in time, in a judgment of 17 July 2000 the Sofia District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim.
13.  On 6 October 2000 the applicant appealed. After holding six hearings, in a judgment of 29 April 2004 the Sofia City Court upheld the lower court’s judgment.
14.  On 29 November 2004 the applicant appealed on points of law. After holding a hearing on 8 February 2008, in a final judgment of 1 July 2008 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the lower court’s judgment.
6.  The applicants’ names and other details are indicated in the table below. All the applicants except Ms Odintsova are Russian retired servicemen entitled to payment of pensions by the State. Ms Odintsova is the widow of a colonel who died in the crash of a training aircraft.
7.  On various dates the applicants sued the military commissions in their regions and, in case of Kazakevich and Osipov, the Ministry of Defense and the Federal Security Service (FSB) respectively, claiming payment of a pension or increase of pensions on account of their military service and, in the case of Odintsova, on account of her husband’s death.
8.  The domestic courts granted the applicants’ claims (see details of the judgments in the table below). The judgments in cases of Sukchev and Zamakhayev were upheld on appeal; other judgments were not appealed against by the defendant authorities. All the judgments in the applicants’ favour thus became binding and enforceable on the dates indicated in the table below.
9.  On various dates the Presidiums of higher courts allowed the defendant authorities’ applications for supervisory review and quashed the judgments in the applicants’ favour, considering that the lower courts misapplied the material law (see details of the judgments in the table below). In the cases of Odintsova and Osipov the Presidiums dismissed the applicants’ claims by the same judgments. In the other cases the Presidiums sent the cases back to the first instance courts, which later dismissed the applicants’ claims.
10.  In five cases (Kazakevich, Odintsova, Osipov, Sukchev and Zamakhayev), the judgments in the applicants’ favour were not enforced. In the other five cases (Legkov, Afanasyev, Polyanskiy, Malakhov and Zorin), the judgments in the applicants’ favour were enforced as regards the lump sum and/or monthly awards. It appears that the payment of monthly awards was stopped a short time before or after the quashing of the judgments on supervisory review.
11.  In the case of Odintsova, the Samarskiy District Court of Samara delivered on 27 May 2003 another judgment in the applicant’s favour, granting pension arrears and a sum of 2,500.00 Russian roubles (RUB) as compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs. The judgment was not appealed against and became enforceable on 6 June 2003. The Government submitted that all awards had been credited to the applicant’s bank account on 12 August 2003 and that a separate sum of RUB 2,500.00 had again been credited to the applicant’s account on 9 November 2004 as a result of a clerical error. The applicant submitted that the pension arrears awarded by the court had been credited to her account on 3 September 2003 but the remainder award of RUB 2,500.00 had only been credited in November 2004.
12.  On 24 December 2001 Ms Odintsova filed a separate lawsuit against the Ministry of Defense, claiming compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. On 2 October 2003 the Kirovskiy District Court of Samara rejected her claims. On 11 November 2003 the Samara Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Ankara.
5.  On 11 August 1994 the applicant, a building contractor, was charged by the Ardahan public prosecutor with forgery of official documents for his personal financial benefit to the detriment of the administrative authorities.
6.  On 18 October 1994 the Ardahan Assize Court held the first hearing on the merits of the case (case no. 1994/47).
7.  During the second hearing held on 29 November 1994, the Ardahan Assize Court decided to await the outcome of certain administrative proceedings against a civil engineer working at the Kars governor’s office.
8.  On 21 May 1998 criminal proceedings brought against the aforementioned civil engineer were joined to the case against the applicant.
9.  On 2 March 1999 the first-instance court was notified of the outcome of the administrative proceedings against the civil engineer.
10.  On 13 February 2001 the Ardahan Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged.
11.  On 15 November 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
12.  On 9 January 2003 the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation objected to the decision of the Court of Cassation, arguing, inter alia, that the first-instance court had failed to conduct a graphological examination of the allegedly forged documents.
13.  On 1 April 2003 the Plenary Court of Cassation (Criminal Divisions) (Yargıtay Ceza Genel Kurulu) dismissed the Principal Public Prosecutor’s objection regarding the graphological examination, holding that such an examination was not justified by the facts of the case, and upheld the judgment of 13 February 2001 with one minor technical amendment (düzelterek onama).
14.  On 23 June 2003 the decision of the Plenary Court of Cassation (Criminal Divisions) was deposited with the registry of the first-instance court.
5.  The applicants, a daughter (the first applicant) and a mother (the second applicant), were born in 1993 and 1967, respectively, and live in Niš.
6.  On 6 May 2003 M.D., the first applicant's father, filed a claim with the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Niš, seeking the dissolution of his marriage to the second applicant.
7.  On 12 February 2004 the applicants jointly filed a counterclaim (protvtužba), requesting that M.D. be ordered to pay monthly child maintenance to the first applicant.
8.  On 18 January 2005 the Municipal Court: dissolved the marriage; awarded custody of the first applicant to the second applicant; regulated M.D.'s access rights; ordered him to pay monthly child maintenance; and decided that each party should bear its own costs.
9.  Due to the Municipal Court's failure to properly serve this judgment on the applicants, the latter, who had clearly continued living at the same address, only managed to file an appeal against it on 27 April 2007.
10.  On 18 September 2007 the District Court (Okružni sud) in Niš quashed the Municipal Court's judgment in so far as it concerned the maintenance sought and ordered a retrial.
11.  Having held four separate hearings, on 26 December 2007 the Municipal Court ruled partly in favour of the applicants. In so doing, it ordered M.D. to pay monthly child maintenance, as well as the costs incurred by the applicants.
12.  On 26 February 2008 this judgment was upheld by the District Court on appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Zonguldak.
5.  On an unspecified date the Land Registry Commission attached to the General Directorate of Land Registration conducted a land registry survey of plots of land in Belen village in the Ereğli district of Zonguldak. Following this survey, plot nos. 2 and 3 were registered in the Land Registry in the names of A.G. and K.G. respectively.
6.  On 22 February 1985 the applicant brought a case before the Karadeniz Ereğlisi Cadastral Court requesting that plot nos. 2 and 3 be registered in his name.
7.  On 12 December 1986 the court joined the case in question to another claim, having regard to the fact that the parties and the subject matter of the cases were the same.
8.  On 6 December 2000 the court granted the applicant's request in part. The parties appealed.
9.  On 12 December 2002 the Court of Cassation remitted the case to the first-instance court on grounds of incorrect service.
10.  On an unspecified date the first-instance court rectified the error in service and sent the case to the Court of Cassation for re-examination.
11.  On 29 April 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 6 December 2000.
12.  On 11 October 2006 the first instance court dismissed the case.
13.  On 13 March 2008 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 11 October 2006.
14.  The case was remitted to the first-instance court for further examination.
15.  According to the information in the case file, the case is still pending before the first-instance court.
4.  The applicants were born in 1974 and 1970 respectively and are currently detained in Diyarbakır.
5.  On 19 January 2000 the applicants were taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of the Hizbullah, an illegal organisation.
6.  On 31 January 2000 a single judge at the Second Chamber of the Ankara State Security Court ordered the applicants' pre-trial detention.
7.  On 24 May 2000 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicants, charging them under Article 146 §1 of the former Criminal Code with attempting to undermine the constitutional order.
8.  On 10 July 2000 the first hearing was held before the Third Chamber of the Diyarbakır State Security Court.
9.  By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts were abolished. The case against the applicants was transferred to the Sixth Chamber of the Diyarbakır Assize Court.
10.  At the end of each hearing, the Diyarbakır State Security Court, and subsequently the Diyarbakır Assize Court, considered the applicants' detention either of their own motion or at the applicants' request. Each time, they ordered the applicants' continued detention pending trial, having regard to the nature of the offence with which they were charged, the existence of a strong suspicion that they had committed the offence and the state of evidence.
11.  According to the information in the case file, the proceedings are still pending before the Sixth Chamber of the Diyarbakır Assize Court and the applicants are still remanded in custody.
4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in İstanbul.
5.  On 2 July 1998 the applicant initiated compensation proceedings before the İstanbul Administrative Court against the İstanbul Stock Exchange (“the IMKB”). He requested 47,000,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) in respect of pecuniary damage and TRL 5,000,000,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the period between November 1990 and 16 December 1996 during which, as had previously been established by the domestic courts, he ought to have been recruited by the IMKB.
6.  On 18 July 1998 the IMKB unsuccessfully challenged the jurisdiction of the İstanbul Administrative Court. On 8 February 1999 the IMKB repeated its challenge and requested that the matter be referred to the Jurisdiction Disputes Court. On 7 July 1999 the Court of Cassation confirmed the public corporative nature of the IMKB and held that the matter fell within the jurisdiction of the administrative courts.
7.  On 30 November 2001 the İstanbul Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage and awarded him TRL 3,117,228,526[1] in respect of pecuniary damage, plus default interest running from the date on which the debt arose until the date of payment. Both parties appealed.
8.  On 11 May 2005 the IMKB paid the applicant TRL 17,275,000,000[2].
9.  On 24 May 2005 the Council of State upheld the judgment. On 9 September 2005 the applicant requested rectification. On 10 December 2007 the Council of State dismissed the applicant's request. The applicant was notified of this on 7 February 2008.
5.  Both applicants, who are brothers, were born in 1946: Mr Nicolae Veniamin lives in Boulogne and Mr Lascăr Veniamin in Paris.
6.  On an unspecified date, the State seized possession of an apartment belonging to the mother of the applicants, on the 4th floor of no.43, Dacia Street, in Bucharest.
7.  By a final decision of 19 June 1998, the Bucharest District Court allowed the action brought by the applicants against the State for recovery of possession (acţiune în revendicare). The applicants were granted possession of the apartment on 19 January 1999.
8.  Within less than one month from the final decision favourable to the applicants, on 6 July 1998, the State sold the apartment to the tenants under Law no. 112/1996. Subsequently, on 11 February 1999 the Mayor of Bucharest issued a decision for the restitution of the apartment to the tenants who had bought it.
9.  The applicants lodged an action against the tenants, seeking to have the contract of sale concluded by them with the State set aside and the restitution of ownership of the apartment. By a final decision of 2 November 2004, the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the action on the ground that the buyers had concluded the contract in good faith.
4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Bucharest.
5.  On 29 September 1994, the applicant was arrested mainly on charges of robbery and trespassing. The criminal proceedings against him and three other persons were opened the same day.
6.  On 28 November 1994, he was released from custody.
7.  In an indictment dated 29 September 1995, the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Bucharest County Court committed the applicant and the three other persons for trial.
8.  On 12 October 1995 the case was registered with the Bucharest District Court.
9.  On 2 April 1996, on an appeal by one of the co-accused against an interlocutory judgment rendered in the case, the file was sent to the Bucharest County Court, from where it was returned on 13 May 1996 and was entered into the court's list on 29 May 1996. However, none of the contents of the file could be found after this date.
10.  Consequently, on 7 March 1997, the District Court sent the case back to the County Prosecutor's Office to reconstitute the file.
11.  On 6 June 1997, under Article 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the County Prosecutor's Office referred the case back to the District Court, this being the appropriate judicial authority to reconstitute the file at that stage of the proceedings.
12.  Therefore, on 30 June 1997, the case was re-entered into the District Court's list.
Several items, such as the indictment and the arrest warrants, were requested from the Prosecutor's Office.
13.  On 7 December 2001 the District Court considered the file reconstituted. It gave judgment on 7 February 2003, sentencing the applicant to six years' imprisonment.
14.  Most of the adjournments of the hearings were caused by the failings of the judicial authorities in summoning the defendants or civil parties
15.  Following an appeal by the applicant, the sentence was upheld in a decision of 12 May 2004 of the Bucharest County Court and lastly in a final decision of 29 July 2004 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal.
5.  The applicants, Ms Andrea AnnaMaria Ţuluş and forty-six other applicants are Romanian nationals. They are judges and auxiliary personnel of the Cluj County Court.
6.  Twenty of the forty-seven applicants have two given names. However, only one of these names appeared in the decisions of the domestic courts. For example, the main applicant's full name is Andrea AnnaMaria Ţuluş, while in the domestic decisions she is referred to as Andrea Ţuluş.
7.  In a judgment of 17 May 2002, the Cluj County Court allowed an action concerning the restitution of the amounts retained as health insurance contributions from the salaries of the applicants for the period between 1 January 2000 and 30 March 2001. The action was lodged by the applicants against the County Court of Cluj and the Ministry of Justice.
8.  In a final decision of 2 July 2002, the Cluj Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal filed by the Ministry of Justice against that judgment.
9.  At the end of 2003, the applicants obtained the restitution of the amounts retained from their salaries through forced execution.
10.  On 2 July 2003, the Procurator-General lodged an application with the High Court of Cassation and Justice to have the final decision quashed (recurs în anulare) on the ground that the decision had seriously infringed the law and that it was, in any case, manifestly ill-founded.
11.  In its decision of 11 May 2004, the High Court allowed the extraordinary appeal, quashed the final decision of 2 July 2002 and the judgment of 17 May 2002 and, as a result, rejected the applicants' action, on the ground that the ordinary court had incorrectly interpreted the applicable law.
12.  In their last letter addressed to the Court, on 7 August 2008, the applicants stated that the High Court's decision of 11 May 2004 had never been executed and consequently they had not returned the amounts obtained through forced execution.
4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Skopje.
5. On 27 November 1997 she complained to her employer about her treatment at work.
6.  On 9 December 1997 the employer dismissed the applicant, considering her complaint as a request for resignation. The applicant's objection remained undecided.
7.  On 26 February 1998 she claimed before the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”) annulment of the dismissal decision, her reinstatement and payment of unpaid salary.
8.  On 17 February 1999 the court ordered expert examination of the applicant's mental state of health on 27 November 1997, the date when she had submitted her complaints to the employer. The applicant was ordered to pay the expert fees within fifteen days. On 12 June 2000 the first-instance court noted that the applicant had failed to pay the fees.
9.  On 4 May 2001 the court ordered expert examination of the applicant's mental health again. The applicant paid the expert fees on 26 October 2001. The expert opinion was submitted on 15 November 2001.
10.  During the trial proceedings, three hearings were adjourned due to the incorrect delivery of court summons to the applicant and her lawyer.
11.  On 19 September 2002 the first-instance court dismissed (одбива) the applicant's claim as having been submitted out of the fifteen-day statutory time-limit. On 27 March 2003 the Skopje Court of Appeal quashed this decision since the applicant's claim should have been rejected (отфрла) instead.
12.  On 15 October 2003 the first-instance court rejected the applicant's claim as out of time. On the same date the applicant was exempted of court fees (судска такса). On 17 March 2004 the Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal of 5 December 2003.
13.  On 20 April 2004 the applicant submitted to the Supreme Court an appeal on points of law (ревизија) arguing that the fifteen-day time-limit had been of a non-binding (инструктивен) nature. In this connection, she referred to a decision of 28 December 1999 in which the Supreme Court allegedly had given such reasoning.
14.  On 30 March 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal stating that the statutory time-limit had been of a preclusive nature. This decision was served on the applicant on 27 June 2005.